Vikings RB Adrian Peterson wants to return, open to pay cut

[losperros]

You won't get an argument out of me about how it should have been or should be. It was as if Vikings management believed 2012 was the template for offensive success, not 2009.

The problem is that as long as 28 is in the backfield, Vikings management is going to make him the focal point. And THAT is precisely why I don't want him re-signed. The only way this group is going to extricate itself from the "we gotta get AP his carries" mentality is if he's not on the roster.

I agree completely with what Jim is saying, especially about the need to pair Peterson with an effective passing game. But you make a really good point about the team's tunnel vision regarding Peterson. It seems as if the Vikings simply feel they have only one direction to go with AD, which I seriously question.

Yeah, AD has to get carries but at what cost? Does it mean the Vikings absolutely must go with a one-note offense? I don't think so. Is that Peterson's doing? No, I think it's close-mindedness by the coaching and coordinating.

But I also think the dynamic will rear its ugly head again once AD is inserted back into the lineup. This team won't do it any other way.

[Mothman]

I agree completely with what Jim is saying, especially about the need to pair Peterson with an effective passing game. But you make a really good point about the team's tunnel vision regarding Peterson. It seems as if the Vikings simply feel they have only one direction to go with AD, which I seriously question.

Yeah, AD has to get carries but at what cost? Does it mean the Vikings absolutely must go with a one-note offense? I don't think so. Is that Peterson's doing? No, I think it's close-mindedness by the coaching and coordinating.

But I also think the dynamic will rear its ugly head again once AD is inserted back into the lineup. This team won't do it any other way.

Which, to me, is indicative of why they may still have the wrong people in charge but that's another thread altogether.

[J. Kapp 11]

Which, to me, is indicative of why they may still have the wrong people in charge but that's another thread altogether.

But Jim, it hasn't changed, from Childress to Frazier to Zimmer, from Bevell to Musgrave to Norv, with the notable exception being 2009 (and even then, Favre pretty much had to go rogue and flash the big f-you to Childress when it came to play calls).

Unless you're talking about the people above them, of course.

I don't know why, but we just can't seem to get out of this mindset of "we're gonna run the ball with Peterson, play field position, cover punts really well, and let our defense win games." Heck, even now, with the skill positions in the passing game as sound as they've been in many years, we still revert to the safety of "offense, don't lose it for us." It's frustrating.

[Mothman]

But Jim, it hasn't changed, from Childress to Frazier to Zimmer, from Bevell to Musgrave to Norv, with the notable exception being 2009 (and even then, Favre pretty much had to go rogue and flash the big f-you to Childress when it came to play calls).

Unless you're talking about the people above them, of course.

I was referring to both but especially to Rick Spielman.

I think the main reason it hasn't changed much from coach to coach is because they all want to win and they've all tended to conclude that, with the QBs and passing games they had, grinding out wins with Peterson was their best bet.

I don't know why, but we just can't seem to get out of this mindset of "we're gonna run the ball with Peterson, play field position, cover punts really well, and let our defense win games."

Some fo that may come from having 2 defensive head coaches in a row. That's not an uncommon philosophy among defensive HCs.

That said, as I'm sure you can tell, I concluded long ago that the main reason for that mindset was their inability to build a sufficiently effective passing game. They certainly couldn't lean heavily on QBs like Jackson, Ponder and Bridgewater from week to week and expect to win consistently. Some of the veteran journeymen they've had (like Frerotte and Cassell) were't exactly the kind of QBs you ask to carry the offense either. We haven't seen a parade of top notch, highly-skilled WRs during the Peterson era either. Rice had one terrific season but couldn't stay healthy. Harvin had his moments but some real limitations too. When it comes to passing, it's been a pretty ugly decade for the Vikings.

In the absence of a good passing game, Peterson could be a stabilizing, clock-chewing force so coaches leaned on him and tried to win with the ground game and defense.

Heck, even now, with the skill positions in the passing game as sound as they've been in many years, we still revert to the safety of "offense, don't lose it for us." It's frustrating.

I agree. Maybe next year, they can finally put together another well-balanced offense (with or without Peterson) and get out of that mentality.

[Demi]

Does it mean the Vikings absolutely must go with a one-note offense? I don't think so. Is that Peterson's doing? No, I think it's close-mindedness by the coaching and coordinating.

You don't think any of it is on Peterson? His questionable blocking and hands throughout his career? Reports of him preferring not to play out of the shotgun? He isn't a well rounded back you can open the play book for and expect him to be where he's needed. Heck there were reports of Favre needing to tell him his job on some plays!

If Peterson is back there, the team doesn't need to go one-note. But the song is limited when you have 11 strings and one of them isn't in tune!

[mansquatch]

This goes into the coaching philosophy bit, but some of the passing issues are probably entrenched in the inherent risk reward of football.

The Vikings really since Culpepper got hurt have not had a reliable downfield pass catcher or a reliable deep ball thrower. 2009 was an obvious exception. Only in the last 2 seasons has the WR position started to transition from a weakness to a strength. (Due to Diggs and Thielen mostly.) QB wise neither the Jackson era nor the Ponder era were marked by reliable passing at any level. The short game AND the long game were unreliable, which makes a deep passing attack even more risky. (If you fail to convert you are highly unlikely to get out of 3rd and Long and you can't score enough to afford the 3 and outs. AP obviously benefited from this weakness.

I don't think it is fair to lump Zimmer and Frasier together. Zimmer fields a competitive defense. Frasier fielded a strong defensive unit once in 2012. Every other year his units were a disaster. If you have a defense that can reliable stuff an opponent that it makes sense to take fewer risks so as to not give up the big turnover.

HOWEVER, and this is where I think there was fundamental difference between Turner and Zimmer, you have to still take SOME risk depending on where your offense is at. You need points to win. I've gotten a sense that under Zimmer the Vikings might be a bit too conservative with their risk taking. I think we saw some of this shake out in the last few games where we saw Shurmer calling some more deep shots to try and produce scoring opportunities. I hope that this trend continues.

(Also worth noting, that if you set up conservative play on the foundation of your defense, then it is imperative that your defense show up every Sunday. That is why the flat game issue needs to get solved ASAP.)

[Mothman]

This goes into the coaching philosophy bit, but some of the passing issues are probably entrenched in the inherent risk reward of football.

The Vikings really since Culpepper got hurt have not had a reliable downfield pass catcher or a reliable deep ball thrower. 2009 was an obvious exception. Only in the last 2 seasons has the WR position started to transition from a weakness to a strength. (Due to Diggs and Thielen mostly.) QB wise neither the Jackson era nor the Ponder era were marked by reliable passing at any level. The short game AND the long game were unreliable, which makes a deep passing attack even more risky. (If you fail to convert you are highly unlikely to get out of 3rd and Long and you can't score enough to afford the 3 and outs. AP obviously benefited from this weakness.

I don't think it is fair to lump Zimmer and Frasier together. Zimmer fields a competitive defense. Frasier fielded a strong defensive unit once in 2012. Every other year his units were a disaster. If you have a defense that can reliable stuff an opponent that it makes sense to take fewer risks so as to not give up the big turnover.

It makes sense if your defense cant stop anybody either. Turnovers are costly either way.

I think it's fair to consider all 3 of Peterson's head coaches when discussing how he's been utilized over the course of his career.

[IrishViking]

Just to be clear, my post was tongue and cheek, obviously its not Petersons fault he was injured or paid as much as he was.

My issue is more with spending any amount of money on someone who is out as frequently as he is. It could be money better spent at a more stable position.

[Mothman]

Just to be clear, my most was tongue and cheek, obviously its not Petersons fault he was injured or paid as much as he was.

My issue is more with spending any amount of money on someone who is out as frequently as he is. It could be money better spent at a more stable position.

Considering that he's missed the majority of games in 2 of the last 3 seasons, I'd say that's a reasonable position.

[mosscarter]

with as much help as we need on the offensive line and no first round pick, how can you justify not paying peterson less and keeping him? i know it depends on how much less, but how will we fix the line going with that approach? it needs a pure overhaul not one or two players.

[mansquatch]

Considering that he's missed the majority of games in 2 of the last 3 seasons, I'd say that's a reasonable position.

In AP's defense the 2014 games missed were not due to injury. The Domestic issues were his fault, but that was an extreme year for that sort of stuff.

[IrishViking]

In AP's defense the 2014 games missed were not due to injury. The Domestic issues were his fault, but that was an extreme year for that sort of stuff.

Bottom line is he didn't play though, results are what matter. We paid him a lot of money not to play at all.

[germannorseman]

I still would like to keep AP. Definitely not at his current money. He's still better than 75% of the backs out there. At least I think he is. He was hurt so there's no way to know for sure, but I don't have a reason to doubt that at this point. But he IS older and doesn't have more than a couple of full years left. Bottom line. Keep him, but pay him a lot less.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

[Banquo]

In my opinion, the reason why the offense becomes so run heavy or "one note" with Peterson in is because he basically requires that the offense run from under center if he's going to be effective. And if you're running your offense from under center, then you had better be run heavy or you're going to incur a lot of negative plays. That's why I believe Vikings fans have seen the same tendencies regardless of coaching staffs (that, and the reality that the QB play has been horrible while Peterson's been there, save with Favre).

If it's me, I'd move on from him. The offensive talent and staff is pointing towards an entirely different style of play. I don't see why you'd keep such an expensive RB at that age who doesn't jive with the direction that most of the rest of the talent is going. Bradford, the line issues, and the style of WR (especially Diggs) points to a WCO that heavily incorporates the shotgun. I'd find RB personnel to fit that mold and run with it.

[Mothman]

In my opinion, the reason why the offense becomes so run heavy or "one note" with Peterson in is because he basically requires that the offense run from under center if he's going to be effective. And if you're running your offense from under center, then you had better be run heavy or you're going to incur a lot of negative plays. That's why I believe Vikings fans have seen the same tendencies regardless of coaching staffs (that, and the reality that the QB play has been horrible while Peterson's been there, save with Favre).

If it's me, I'd move on from him. The offensive talent and staff is pointing towards an entirely different style of play. I don't see why you'd keep such an expensive RB at that age who doesn't jive with the direction that most of the rest of the talent is going. Bradford, the line issues, and the style of WR (especially Diggs) points to a WCO that heavily incorporates the shotgun. I'd find RB personnel to fit that mold and run with it.

One thing frequently left out of the conversation about the Vikes playing more from the shotgun and moving away from Peterson is their relative lack of success with that strategy. That doesn't mean it can't be successful but they failed to put together a winning season leaning on that approach in 2014 and again in 2016. Even in 2015, when teams were able to get up on the Vikes and they got away from running Peterson and went to more shotgun, they tended to get blown out. Is a move toward a shotgun-oriented, pass-heavy approach actually a good fit for the Vikings and a good match with Zimmer's defense? The general consensus around here was that the offense improved after Turner left this season and while the numbers were a little better, the team ran less and their record was much worse.

If they're going to move forward without Peterson (and sooner or later, that will be necessary) they'd better figure out how to win without him. Thus far, running the offense primarily from the shotgun hasn't worked out very well at all for Zimmer's Vikes.